Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1887-07-07
the LANo-oRANT ROADS.

and Hold mat He Has No Authority to
For1sIt Their Lau0s.
WAsHINGToN, June 2S-The Secretary OF
the Interior has received answers from all
the land grant railroads named in his rule
dated Nay % 1881, requiring them TO snow
cause on or before June %, 1887, why the
several orders of withdrawal from settle
ment of the lands within their indemnity
limits should not be revoked and the Iand
embraced therein restored to settlements
The St Paul & Sioux City Railroad Com
pany, in its answer, takes the position that
tits beyond the power and the jurisdiction
of the Secretary Of the Interior, as the law
stands, TO restore to settlement any lands
within the indemnity limits OF that com
pany; certainly not until the grant shall
have first been finally adjusted. II holds
that, so far as indemnity lands are con-
cerned, the acts of 1857, 1854 and 1865, being
in pari materia, the last two amendatory Of
the earlier grants and all operating upon
precisely the same subject matter, that is
to say, upon the selection Of indemnity
lands, stand and must be construed to-
gether as one enactment, and into that enact
ment in its entirety is incorporated the pro
vision which Congress saw fit to enact in the
seventh section of the act OF March 8, 1865,
viz: THE direction to the Secretary OF the
Interior to withdraw from market the land
embraced by the provisions Of the act"
and hence it follows that the withdrawal
of all the indemnity lands lying within
twenty miles OF the line of the road was a,
legislative withdrawal; that when the Sec
rotary ofthe Interior issued the necessary
executive or administrative order to carry
that withdrawal into effect he exhausted
all the powers of the land department over
the subject matter; that as the public lands
OF the United States are only disposable
under the direction OF Congress, it requires
Legislation by that body before its enact
ments dedicating the land in question can
be repealed, modified or set aside and that
Congress not having repealed its legis1a-
lation with respect to the grant, any at
tempt on the part of an executive officer by
way of the revocation of the act of his pre-
decessor, Is in direct opposition to the ex-
pressed direction of Congress.
The st. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Rail
road Company claims that its grants not
confined to the State of Minnesota and that
it is entitled to lands lying within ten miles
OF its main and branch lines irrespective of
political boundaries, but for the purpose of
testing the question the company some years,
ago instituted sundry suits in the circuit
court of the United States for the district of
Minnesota which have since been appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United States,
where they are still pending; that its IN
demnity selections, many OF them made
wears ago, include all the lands within the
indemnity limits of its main and branch
lines, and that it is not owing to any fault
railroad company that the adjustment of
its grant has not long ago been fully COM
pleted. The company suggests that
selections have been made for all lands
within the indemnity limit such lands have
been placed sub judicio and therefore are
removed from the category of public lands
and can not be made subject to adverse
rights by homestead or presumption en-
tries or in any other way until the rights
of the company thereto have first been ex-
amined and adjusted.
The Atlantic & Pacific Company claims
that it has not failed to give ample notice
of its indemnity right and claims that the
notice heretofore given already shows that
by past and present selection of all lands
within its available limits, the grant as
earned is deficient more than ,0OO, 600 acres;
that the contract between the United States
and the Atlantic & Pacific Company would
be seriously violated if through knowledge
OF these facts any revocation of the exist
ing indemnity Withdrawals is made or other .
action taken tending to defeat, impair or
cloud the rights of the company therein;
that delay in selection has arisen from the
failure of the United States to make sur
vey of the granted and indemnity lands;
to ascertain and settle the boundaries of.
the pending small land claims with such GER
tainty that the precise acreage of loss there
in can be determined; to make known their
claims by proper description, and finally
by it's affirmative acts in creating Indian
and other reservations within the railroad
grant, enlarging others therefor created,
and its refusal to permit surveys TO be
made on the company's deposit OF the cost
thereof. Notwithstanding these difficulties
the company states that it has done all
things possible to indemnify its losses,
make its selections and submits that nei-
Their in law, equity or good conscience
should the existing withdrawal be re-
scinded
The Oregon & California Railroad Com
pany, in its answer, represents that the
whole number of odd sections contained
within the indemnity limits of its grant
will fall by IS 900 acres short of compensat-
ing it for its lands lost in place, and as the
larger portions of these lands have never
been surveyed so as to render it possible
for the company to make selections of such
lien lands, it submits that it would be
manifest injustice if the existing orders Of
should now be revoked.